3rd International Conference on Ocean Energy, 6 October, Bilbao

Preliminary economic assessment and analysis of grid connection schemes for ocean energy arrays
J. Lopez1, P. Ricci1, J. L. Villate1, A.S.Bahaj2, L.E.Myers2, C. Retzler3, J.-F. Dhedin4
TECNALIA-Energa / Energy ROBOTIKER-Tecnalia, Parque Tecnolgico, Edificio 202. E-48170 Zamudio (SPAIN) E-mail: jlmendia@robotiker.es Pelamis Wave Power Ltd 31 Bath Rd, Leith, Edinburgh, Scotland. UK E-mail: C.Retzler@pelamiswave.com
3 1

Sustainable Energy research Group School of Civil Engineering and the Environment University of Southampton, University Road, Southampton, UK E-mail: luke@soton.ac.uk EDF EDF R&D, Laborartoire National dHydraulique Environment, 6 quai Watier, 78 401 Chatou cedex, France. E-mail: jean-francois.dhedin@edf.fr
4

Abstract
This paper addresses a preliminary assessment of several alternatives for grid connection of arrays of tidal and wave energy devices and provides general guidance for the lay-out definition and the choice of electrical connection configuration. The work has been undertaken as a part of EquiMar a project funded under the European Community's Seventh Framework Programme FP7/2007-2013 under grant agreement n FP721338. A general outline of the requirements of electrical connection and an insight of the main different alternatives for grid connection is first presented. It is shown how distance to shore, depth and installed power affect the choice of the type of transmission (HVAC or HVDC) and how the engineering of the connection infrastructure for large scale arrays is still a challenging subject, especially for complex elements like electrical substations. Subsequently a methodology for electrical efficiency calculation and global economic assessment is proposed and applied to different case studies, taking into account different sizes and distances to shore The main losses are concentrated, for relatively large lengths, on the electrical cables, and their estimation is based on a distributed parameters line model. Additional losses due to offshore and onshore substations are considered based on referenced values by suppliers. Results from the efficiency calculation will provide criteria for the selection of the appropriate transmission voltage and will be based on performance matrix and curves claimed by device developers. Finally, a global economic assessment methodology is proposed and applied to some of the cases utilising simplified costing functions of the

items that compose the design and installation of a grid connection infrastructure. Results are provided for different operational durations of the project and for different discount factors. Even though the methodology applied is general and does not deal with the detail that a realistic deployment project would require, it is believed that it will be useful for preliminary assessment and guidance to the design of ocean energy arrays.
Keywords: Arrays, Power transmission efficiency,

HVDC, HVAC.

Introduction

Marine energy generators must be electrically connected to the onshore grid system in order to make use of the energy generated. The marine environment both above and below the water surface poses particular challenges in terms of the harsh environmental conditions the connection equipment must withstand. In addition, access to the equipment for inspection, maintenance and repair will probably be weather-dependent and therefore sporadic and unpredictable. Access costs will be high due to the requirement for sea-going vessels and divers and/or submersible vehicles. Alongside the environmental conditions, the electricity output of the marine energy installation, as for any other form of electricity generation, must meet the technical electrical system requirements of the electrical grid operator. Depending upon the form of the marine energy generator, this may require electrical conversion and control equipment. The location of this equipment must be carefully considered with regard to reliability and accessibility. The challenges posed by the marine environment may be met by utilising equipment of a high standard of design and manufacture suited to the environment in which it is being operated. Such equipment is currently

3rd International Conference on Ocean Energy, 6 October, Bilbao

utilised in the oil and gas industry, but the manufacture and installation of this equipment is extremely costly, and best possible use must be made of it to ensure economic viability of the marine energy installation. HVDC and HVAC transmission costs are equal, can be identified.

2 Power transmission options

From a theoretical point of view any marine energy device might be directly connected to the grid without any additional element, assuming that a proper power converter is installed on board. However, for efficiency and economical reasons, it is likely that power produced by arrays of converters will be collected and transformed before transmitting it across the sea. This can be achieved in several ways and through several possible configurations that will be introduced below. A first distinction should be made based on the type of power transmission between offshore and onshore locations. Electrical energy can be transported by alternating current (AC) or direct current (DC): for offshore plants the choice of whether to use a DC or AC transmission line is mainly determined by the distance to shore and the installed capacity ([1], [2], [3], [4]). For projects located far from the grid connection point, or of several hundred megawatts in capacity, AC transmission becomes very expensive or, in some cases, practically impossible due to cable-generated reactive power using up much of the transmission capacity. In such cases, high voltage DC (HVDC) transmission is becoming an option. Such a system requires an AC/DC converter station both offshore and onshore; both stations are large installations whose building and operation might impose a number of engineering and economical challenges. Currently most of the existing offshore transmission systems use HVAC for the transport of electrical power from the farm to the shore. Usually, an offshore substation is used to increase transmission voltage and therefore limit losses. Nevertheless, when the farm is not very distant from shore and the energy generator voltage transformer is high enough, offshore transforming substations may not be necessary. There are two different preliminary issues to take into account for selection of the transmission options: capital costs associated with the initial investment and the efficiency of the transmission line (transmitted power divided by power produced). A general feasibility analysis should primarily include the understanding of these two parameters. Other evaluation criteria should be considered as well but might be strongly site-specific and therefore difficult to accommodate under a general approach. 2.1 Investment costs The terminal costs of DC transmission systems are usually much higher than AC transmission costs. As we can see in figure 1, as the distance to the shore increases, the investment for AC line increases more than HVDC, in such a way that a break point, where

Figure 1: Comparative of investment costs between AC and DC [5].

2.2 Transmission efficiency The transmission efficiency is an important point to take into account to evaluate the transmission option for an offshore farm. When the distance to the shore is not large the efficiency of HVAC transmission is higher than HVDC transmission. However, similarly to the costs comparison of the figure above, we can see in figure 4 that also here there is a break point over which the efficiency becomes higher in HVDC transmission option.

Figure 2: Comparative of transmission efficiency between AC and DC [5].

Preliminary grid connection configurations at a generic site should aim at managing a balance between the investment costs and transmission efficiency, since the latter would influence the future revenues of the installations. To perform such analysis, at least on an approximate basis, one should define firstly some basic inputs about the array such as distance to shore and power installed. It is also likely that tidal energy arrays will be closer to shore in relatively shallow water constrained by land masses. Therefore even at this stage HVDC appear more likely for wave energy arrays particularly large installations of deep-water devices. Other parameters such as water depth and various environmental parameters might be pertinent however, on a purely electrical analysis, these latter parameters would be much less decisive.

3rd International Conference on Ocean Energy, 6 October, Bilbao

3 Power transmission modelling

3.1 AC transmission losses modelling For the modelling of AC transmission cable the distributed parameter model was used. This model is commonly applied for the basic assessment of the power flow in simple electrical configurations ([[6]). Figure 3 illustrates schematically this approach. The impedance and admittance of any single line is applied to each infinitesimal section in order to correctly model the longitudinal variability of voltage and current.
dV

Where

Lline

and

Cline are

inductance

and

capacitance of the line. The resistance of the cable can be obtained through the relationship: Rline=/S Where S is the area of the cross section of the conductor and stands for the resistivity of the conductor material (in this case copper). 3.2 DC transmission losses modelling Cable losses in DC connection configurations are simpler to model than in the AC case. Under fair assumptions, only dissipative resistive losses are of importance in this case therefore there is no need for complex models. Two different options for HVDC power transmission are currently available: HVDC LCC and HVDC VSC. More information on the structure and design issues associated with these configurations can be found in [1] and [4]. As for the current study, we considered different converter losses for the two cases (around 12% of the transmitted power for LCC and 4-5% for VSC, see [11] and [12]).

I1 V1

I2
V2

Z k dl
V
Y k dl

dl
L

Figure 3: Scheme of distributed parameters model of the cable.

4 Power transmission efficiency

In figure 4 we can see the evolution of the power transmission efficiency against power and voltage transmission for a distance to shore of 20 km of a HVAC power transmission system. When the distance to shore is relatively small, as in this case, the elevation of the transmission voltage has little effect upon the efficiency. Particularly in figure 6 it can be seen how this parameter is very close to 1 for all the possible options. Generally better values can be observed for larger powers We can appreciate that for a power installed of 90MW two different possibilities for high efficiency can be recognized: the first is characterized by relatively low transmission voltage. This corresponds to higher currents and possibly higher resistive losses but, on the other hand, also to very small reactive effects. On the contrary, the second area of high efficiency corresponds to very high transmission voltage, where reactive effects are predominant over Joule losses.
Marine farm Distance Param dist 20 (Km) efficiency comparative 110 99 100

The main equations of the model are:

V2 = V1 cosh ZlYl L

Zl I1 sinh ZlY l L Yl V I 2 = I 1 cosh ZlY l L 1 sinh ZlY l L Zl Yl

Where V1 and I 1 are voltage and current at the offshore terminal, V2 and I 2 are the same parameters at the end of the line (onshore), Zl is the impedance of the line per km and Yl the admittance per km. For the calculation of the parameters of the three core cable line impedance and admittance, the first step is the design of the cable: The cross section of one core has been determined by taking into account transmission voltage and power capacity (see [5], [6] P. Kundur. (1994): Power system stability and control, McGraw-Hill Inc. [7], [8]). For the thickness of the insulation and other layers, reference was made to international standards such as the IEC 60502 [9]. The expressions for the kilometric admittance and impedance of each core are described as: Zl = Rline + jX k , Yl = Gline + jBk .Where Rline and X k are respectively resistance and reactance per unit length of the line while Gline and Bk represent conductance and susceptance per unit length of the line. Following [10] we can further write: X k = wLline , Bk = wC line

90 Voltage (kV)

98.5

80

98

70 97.5 60 97 50 20 30 40 50 60 70 Power (MW) 80 90 100

Figure 4: Marine farm efficiency for different AC transmission voltage and power installed (20 km).

3rd International Conference on Ocean Energy, 6 October, Bilbao

In [13] different connection options for offshore wind farms are presented. There are examples that can be compared and related to figure 4. The first one is Kentish Flats (90 MW, 2005) which connects 8.5 km to shore with a 33kV of transmission voltage without substation and the second one is Barrow in Furness (90 MW, 2006) that has a 33/132kV substation and which connects at 7 Km from shore. Even if these two cases are very similar in terms of distance to shore and transmitted power, it can be seen how the choice of the voltage is basically opposite, according to discussion relating to figure 4. In figure 5 we can see the power transmission efficiency for a 100 km to shore case of AC transmission marine farm. In this example by contrast to the 20 km distance results, the best choice for efficiency is a relatively lower transmission voltage for lower powers, mainly because of the fact that at such long distances the capacitance effect of the submarine cables is very important.
Marine farm Distance Param dist 100 (Km) efficiency comparative 110 95 90 85 90 80 Voltage (kV) 80 75 70 65 60 60 50 55 20 30 40 50 60 70 Power (MW) 80 90 100

point distance is reduced as the transmission voltage is increased, particularly because DC Joule losses are consistently reduced for this case. Furthermore, the influence of the transmission voltage on this value is higher when the power installed is higher because of the increment of losses according with power installed. 4.1 Reactive compensation The most relevant difference in terms of electrical behaviour between cables and overhead lines is the large capacitance of the first ones. This parameter affects the reactive power generated by the cables, decreasing its capacity to transmit active power, especially over long distances. Because of this, it is necessary to provide reactive compensation at the cables ends. The capacitance of HVAC insulated cable plays a major role in limiting the technically and economically feasible length of HVAC cable. Capacitance causes charging current to flow along the length of the cable. Because the cable must carry this current as well as the useful load current, this physical limitation reduces the load carrying capability of the cable. Because capacitance is distributed along the entire length of the cable, the longer the cable the higher is the capacitance and the resulting charging current. As the cable system design voltage is increased to minimize line losses and voltage drop, the charging currents also increase, aggravating the situation. Because the cable capacitance is a distributed parameter, the charging current is not uniform along the length of the cable. If the charging current were supplied from one end only (to use the more exact convention, reactive power would be absorbed at that end) it would be highest at that end and the voltage would be highest at the opposite end of the cable. These peak values of current and voltage become problematic for electrical reasons, hence limiting factors in selection of the cable (for example the peak value of the current might be higher than the actual nominal rating of the cable). If the charging current could be supplied from both ends, the current would be highest at both ends but only half the magnitude if fed from one end only; the voltage would be highest in the middle of the cable.
Marine farm efficiency ( 20 MW ) ( 45 kV ) 100 AC DC AC with reactive compensation

100

70

Figure 5: Marine farm efficiency for different AC transmission voltage and power installed (100 km).

To observe how AC and DC transmission efficiencies vary along the distance to shore figure 6 shows results for the case of an installed power of 20 MW and transmission voltage of 45kV. As we can observe there is a break point where the transmission efficiency is the same for AC and DC. Below this equilibrium distance, AC is generally more efficient whereas DC transmission is preferable above this limit.
Marine farm efficiency ( 20 MW ) ( 45 kV ) 100 AC DC 95

Efficiency ( % )

90

95

Efficiency ( % )

85

90

80

85

75

80

10

20

30

40 50 60 Distance ( Km )

70

80

90

100

Figure 6: AC and DC efficiency comparison for 45 kV transmission voltage and power installed of 20 MW.

75

10

20

30

40 50 60 Distance ( Km )

70

80

90

100

Indeed, this break point depends on the power installed and on the transmission voltage. The break

Figure 7: Marine farm efficiency evolution along distance for AC transmission voltage of 45kV, power installed of 20MW, with and without reactive compensation and DC transmission

3rd International Conference on Ocean Energy, 6 October, Bilbao

As we can observe, the reactive compensation effect increases with increasing distances of the cable to shore as the influence of the capacitance of the cable is larger. The reactive compensation has been defined with the aim of obtaining the minimum current intensity in the centre of the length at the transmission cable. In this way the current is the same at the beginning and at the end of the line (figure 8).
Marine farm ( P=100 MW , V=100 kV ),I comparative 550 I(A) No reactive compensation I(A) With reactive compensation 500

HVAC Cable cost Several references have been considered for a rough estimation of the costs associated with subsea cable (see for example [15]). Base cost for transmission cables was assumed to be between 120 and 200/m and 300/m for 145kV. Laying costs are usually between one and three times the cost of the cable. The highest coefficient was applied in this analysis. HVAC Offshore substation The equipment costs of the offshore substation can be divided in two parts: construction and switchgear. Here is an example obtained from [16] where the power installed is 20MW: Substation construction and deployment-500,000 Substation switchgear-1,252,980 HVDC substation and cable costs

450 I (A) 400 350

300

10

20

30

40 50 60 Distance ( Km )

70

80

90

100

Figure 8: Current intensity for transmission with and without compensation. Marine farm of 100MW of power installed and 100kV of transmission voltage

5 Economic assessment
The main objective of this part of the study is to provide guidance to the evaluation of different configurations of marine farms in order to draw some preliminary conclusions on the optimal configurations for different rated power and distance to shore. This analysis has been carried out taking into account the global cost of the infrastructure, including yearly operational and maintenance items. The transmission efficiency of power production is an important factor that must be taken into account as well. In this case, we included a cost item associated with the power losses. . Since the objective of this study is to compare different alternatives for the same sites, some elements of the whole connection infrastructure are not considered in the calculation because it is believed they would be basically the same for all the considered configurations. For example, onshore substations and device cabling and conversion equipment are likely to be determined when the site and the type of converter are chosen. Therefore, they are not included in this calculation. The global cost can be then expressed by the following expression C.Global = C C . + C S + C M + C E .L. Where the different terms of the sum are corresponding to the following definitions: CC . : Cable cost,

The costs of the offshore substation for the HVDC options are quite different from the AC case, due to the presence of a large converter. We considered the data given by [17] and [18] for estimation of substation and cable costs. General coefficients for the converter station are given in [19].For HVDC LCC : C S =0.08/VA and CC . =0.001148P+0.1561 M, and for HVDC VSC: C S =0.11/VA and CC . =0.0286+0.000969P M where P: Power capacity of the cable (MW). Maintenance cost The maintenance costs are difficult to estimate and should be carefully evaluated when more detail on the project is available. In this analysis they have been taken proportional to the capital costs of the substations and dependent on the general conditions of the installation (distance to shore). Their expression is weighted through the use of a discount factor r=10% and assuming a certain number of years of duration of the project:

CM =
i =1

C yearly _ main (1 + r ) i

Where is Cyearly_main: maintenance cost , n: number of years, r: discount factor Energy losses cost To estimate the costs related to the energy losses, the transmission efficiency from the substation to the shore was taken into account. The importance of the efficiency of the infrastructure should be weighted against the site environmental condition and the devices power absorption characteristics. On the following we assumed our farm to be deployed off the Basque coast, for which scatter diagram of the most relevant parameters were available. Moreover, we considered our farm to be composed of several Pelamis P-750 (see [14]) for which power matrix was available for the calculation of the performance in such a way that an approximate value of the energy production 5

C S :Offshore substation cost, C M :Maintenance cost, C E . L. :Energy losses cost. Each of these cost items
are described in the following subsections.

3rd International Conference on Ocean Energy, 6 October, Bilbao

could be defined for each sea state occurring at the site. The efficiency was then computed for every cell of the scatter diagram and the cost associated with the losses was estimated by multiplying them with a defined cost of the electricity generated (in this case we assumed a very high feed-in tariff of 0,3 kW/h). 5.1 Results It is important to highlight that these results are based on approximate data and serve only as a preliminary criterion for the selection of the appropriate configuration for a marine offshore farm. If more accurate data were available, the results might be different and the whole methodology should be slightly modified. Marine farm of 48.75 MW For this case we cannot use 13.2 kV transmission voltage because this choice would determine very high currents (with the impossibility of correctly define the cross-section of the cable). The results show the budget of AC and DC is quite similar confirming that the trend of the cost changes as the rated power of the installation increases.
Inter-device cable (kV) \ transmission cable (kV) 13.2 kV 13.2 kV 13.2 kV 13.2 kV 13.2 kV 13.2 kV 33 kV 132 kV

Marine farm of 19.5 MW The results for an intermediate case (almost 20 MW installed power) show that the AC transmission option is always preferable for all the distances considered. Besides, the transmission voltage to be chosen for this case seems to be always the lowest one (13.2 kV).
Inter-device cable (kV) \ transmission cable (kV) 13.2 kV 13.2 kV 13.2 kV 13.2 kV 13.2 kV 13.2 kV 13.2 kV 33 kV 132 kV

20 km AC 12 15.22 5.4 20 km DC (HVDC LCC /HVDC VSC) 10.37/12.73 10.33/12.68 10.27/12.6 50 km AC 21.2 36.11 11.64 50 km DC (HVDC LCC /HVDC VSC) 20.18/21.54 20.02/21.36 20.19/21.54 70 km AC 28.38 64.12 16.18 70 km DC (HVDC LCC /HVDC VSC) 27.03/27.68 26.78/27.42 28.82/29.51

Table 2: Marine farm global costs in M for different distances to the shore and transmission voltages (19.5 MW) and 5 years of project duration

Marine farm of 9.75 MW If we consider a farm of 9.75 MW located at a distance of 20km to shore, the results show minimum costs with an AC transmission at low voltage. However, as the distance to shore increases, DC option becomes more and more profitable. It is interesting to note that the efficiency and costs break points are different. This is because the initial costs of DC transmission are much higher than the AC case (it should be understood that referenced data for DC costs were applied mainly to high voltage and high power cases and it is likely that the base cost will change with a better approximation).
Inter-device cable (kV) \ transmission cable (kV) 13.2 kV 13.2 kV 13.2 kV 13.2 kV 13.2 kV 13.2 kV 13.2 kV 33 kV 132 kV

20 km AC 19.9 16.81 20 km DC (HVDC LCC /HVDC VSC) 14.61/21.38 14.6/21.37 50 km AC 35.75 25.53 50 km DC (HVDC LCC /HVDC VSC) 25.42/31.08 25.53/25.23 80 km AC 63.13 34.94 80 km DC (HVDC LCC /HVDC VSC) 37.63/42.27 36.10/40.55

Table 1: Marine farm global costs in M for different distances to the shore and transmission voltages (48.75 MW) and 5 years of project duration

The methodology applied might be used also for other purposes. For example, if we had considered the transmitted power rather than the losses and included other cost items related to the device construction and connection equipment and to onshore facilities, we might have estimated the payback period based on different scenarios (discount rates, distance to shore, price of the electricity). Alternatively, based on a predefined budget and expected duration of the project, we could have estimated the selling price of the electricity produced in order to make the investment profitable. In our case we have calculated the total investment cost such a maintenance and other costs with the aim of having a guidance of what are the main characteristics to take into account for a farm design economically profitable.

20 km AC 9.65 13.08 5.5 20 km DC (HVDC LCC /HVDC VSC) 8.97/9.83 8.8/9.7 8.84/9.7 50 km AC 20.61 40 12.15 50 km DC (HVDC LCC /HVDC VSC) 18.65/18.54 18.32/18.2 19/19.9 70 km AC 29.27 93.46 17.45 70 km DC (HVDC LCC /HVDC VSC) 25.62/24.8 25.7/24.88 32.15/31.12

Table 3: Marine farm global costs in M for different distances to shore and transmission voltages (9.75 MW) and 5 years of project duration

3rd International Conference on Ocean Energy, 6 October, Bilbao

6 Conclusions
Different alternatives for the electrical connection of marine energy farms have been presented and discussed in terms of components and electrical design. A general methodology to define the electrical efficiency of a determined configuration has been applied to some specific cases. It is interested to notice that efficiency becomes an important issue when the farm is placed at a large distances to shore. In this case capacitance of the three-phase cable might limit the AC transmission voltage and DC transmission might be preferable since the cables are not affected by reactive power generation in this case. It has been shown that there exists a distance at which the calculated efficiency is the same for both AC and DC configurations and over which the DC solution guarantees minor losses compared to AC. It should be also noticed that AC transmission might require reactive power compensation at both the ends of the line especially in large power installations. Finally, a global approach for the economic assessment of different alternatives has been presented. This method might prove particularly effective when accurate data are available for the deployment site and the components to be used. However, some qualitative conclusions have arisen from the presented results. Particularly AC transmission appeared to be the best option for most of the cases considered, because of the limited distance to shore and size of the farms but DC transmission seems to be comparable in terms of global costs when the rated power of the plant is large. Future work will include a more detailed analysis of particular options, especially in what concerns the inter-device cabling and configuration and the assessment of more detailed connection interfaces. It is believed that the core of this methodology would be applicable also to specific case studies.

[4] de Alegra, I.M. et al. (2008): Transmission alternatives for offshore electrical power, Renew Sustain Energy Rev (2008), doi:10.1016/j.rser.2008.03.009 [5] http://www.abb.com/ [6] P. Kundur. (1994): Power system stability and control, McGraw-Hill Inc. [7] Prismian Cable&Systems. (2007): Cables y Accesorios para Media Tensin [8] http://www.prysmian.es/ [9] IEC 60502-2. Edition 2.0 2005-03 Power cables with extruded insulation and their accessories for rated voltages from 1 kV (Um = 1,2 kV) up to 30 kV (Um = 36 kV) Part 2: Cables for rated voltages from 6 kV (Um = 7,2 kV) up to 30 kV (Um = 36 kV) [10] G.F. Moore. (1997): Electric cables handbook, third edition, BCCCables. [11] Todorovic J. (2004): Losses evaluation of HVAC connection for large offshore wind farms .Masters thesis. Department of Electrical Engineering, Royal Institute of Technology, Stockholm, Sweden. [12] Barberis N. (2005): Evaluation of losses of HVDC solutions for large offshore wind farms. Masters thesis. Royal Institute of Technology, Stockholm, Sweden. [13] P. Bresesti, Member, IEEE, Wil L. Kling, Member, IEEE, and R. Vailati.(2008) Transmission Expansion Issues for Offshore Wind Farms Integration in Europe. [14] http://www.pelamiswave.com [15] Sally D. Wright, Anthony L. Rogers, James F. Manwell, A Ellis, (2003): Transmission options for offshore wind farms in the united states. Renewable Energy Research Lab University of Massachusetts Department of Mechanical and Industrial Engineering Amherst,USA [16] D. OSullivan and G. Dalton. (2009): Challenges in the Grid Connection of Wave Energy Devices. Proceedings of the 8th European Wave and Tidal Energy Conference, Uppsala, Sweden. [17] Lazaros P., Lazaridis. ( 2005): Economic Comparison of HVAC and HVDC Solutions for Large Offshore Wind Farms under Special Consideration of Reliability Masters Thesis .Royal Institute of Technology Department of Electrical Engineering Stockholm. [18] Lundberg S. ( 2003): Configuration study of large wind parks Department of Electric Power Engineering CHALMERS UNIVERSITY OF TECHNOLOGY Goteborg, Sweden [19] N. Barberis Negra a, J. Todorovic b, T. Ackermann c.( 2005)Loss evaluation of HVAC and HVDC transmission solutions for large offshore wind farms. Politecnico of Turin, Department of Electrical Engineering, Italy b ELEKTROPRENOS, Banja Luka, Bosnia and Herzegovina, c Royal Institute of Technology, Teknikringen 33, 10044 Stockholm,

Acknowledgements
This work has been conducted as part of EquiMar, funded under the European Community's Seventh Framework Programme FP7/2007-2013 under grant agreement n FP721338.

References
[1] Equimar project Deliverable 5.1 (2009).Guidance protocols on choosing of electrical connection configurations. [2] T. Ackermann, N. Barberis Negra, J. Todorovic, L. Lazaridis.(2005) Evaluation of Electrical Transmission Concepts for Large Offshore Wind Farms Royal Institute of Technology, School of Electrical Engineering, Tekwnikringen 33, 10044 Stockholm, [3] F. M. Faria da Silva. (2008): Offshore wind parks electrical connection, Instituto superior tecnico.Master thesis.